BoxRec

Enjoy, shitbags 8)

I missed this one. I take it Fury was not very impressve.

Rum , what's wrong with a Stella!

crusader wrote:I missed this one. I take it Fury was not very impressve.

Fury was swinging wildly, very open and showed a distinct lack of power. He was trying to impress too much and ended up impressing too little, the way it often goes.

crusader wrote:I missed this one. I take it Fury was not very impressve.

He looked OK at times but as soon as he realised Power didn't pose much of a threat, which was quite early, he let himself be quite ragged. Boxed at a reasonable pace for him, at least.

Anyone half decent would stretch him based on that, but I'm assuming - surely - he'd be a bit tighter if he had to be.

leforge wrote:Rum , what's wrong with a Stella!

cant be having anything but Rum in the carribean its the national drink of barbados

MatthewS wrote:

leforge wrote:Rum , what's wrong with a Stella!

cant be having anything but Rum in the carribean its the national drink of barbados

It's horrid though! Give me a nice malt or a vodka if on a session!

I'll leave the lot of it myself, just saying thats the tipple of choice out there. Saying that the only bloke I know in person that drinks Rum is an uphill gardener.

MatthewS wrote:I'll leave the lot of it myself, just saying thats the tipple of choice out there. Saying that the only bloke I know in person that drinks Rum is an uphill gardener.

I've lived in the Caribbean...you've got to respect the rum or it'll kill you, I'm telling you.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

MatthewS wrote:I'll leave the lot of it myself, just saying thats the tipple of choice out there. Saying that the only bloke I know in person that drinks Rum is an uphill gardener.

I've lived in the Caribbean...you've got to respect the rum or it'll kill you, I'm telling you.

It's evil stuff !

Some nice comments from the Yank commentators about York Hall.

What they need to do to get a bit of perspective is nip to the bogs to see about 50 gypsies sharing the cubicles

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Some nice comments from the Yank commentators about York Hall.

I didn't like their comments about the referee being the sole judge.

Horse wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Some nice comments from the Yank commentators about York Hall.

I didn't like their comments about the referee being the sole judge.

To be honest mate, I agree with them...the ref has enough to do without scoring. Although it wouldn't be so bad if he scored along with another two outside the ring.

It needs changing, if resources allow.

I agree with them, just the ref scoring leaves it open for controversy, they've got enough work already and three judges would work a lot better whatever type of fight it is.

O'Donnell on now and I'm not really enjoying the fight, not much excitement. O'Donnell aint as good as some of the guys in the domestic welterweight division.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:To be honest mate, I agree with them...the ref has enough to do without scoring. Although it wouldn't be so bad if he scored along with another two outside the ring.

It needs changing, if resources allow.

I don't think three judges will do a better job then the referee.

When the referee makes a bad decision loads of people blame the system, but when the judges mess it up no one blames the system then.

It's a dull fight.

Horse wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:To be honest mate, I agree with them...the ref has enough to do without scoring. Although it wouldn't be so bad if he scored along with another two outside the ring.

It needs changing, if resources allow.

I don't think three judges will do a better job then the referee.

All the judges have to do is watch the fight. Further, if one of them has a bad day, two should compensate. If a sole arbiter has a bad day, that's that.

OK - judges still f*ck up, that's human nature.

But three judges is surely better than one busy man.

iwz678 wrote:I agree with them, just the ref scoring leaves it open for controversy, they've got enough work already and three judges would work a lot better whatever type of fight it is.

Is it really that distracting thinking about who is winning the round whilst they do the rest of their job?

iwz678 wrote:O'Donnell on now and I'm not really enjoying the fight, not much excitement. O'Donnell aint as good as some of the guys in the domestic welterweight division.

I am finding it difficult to care about this fight as well. I don't really know where O'Donnell's career is going and I have lost interest in him.

Horse wrote:

iwz678 wrote:I agree with them, just the ref scoring leaves it open for controversy, they've got enough work already and three judges would work a lot better whatever type of fight it is.

Is it really that distracting thinking about who is winning the round whilst they do the rest of their job?

iwz678 wrote:O'Donnell on now and I'm not really enjoying the fight, not much excitement. O'Donnell aint as good as some of the guys in the domestic welterweight division.

I am finding it difficult to care about this fight as well. I don't really know where O'Donnell's career is going and I have lost interest in him.

He been badly managed IMO

why do/did both fury and o'donnell both sound like women tennis players when they throw punches???

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Horse wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:To be honest mate, I agree with them...the ref has enough to do without scoring. Although it wouldn't be so bad if he scored along with another two outside the ring.

It needs changing, if resources allow.

I don't think three judges will do a better job then the referee.

All the judges have to do is watch the fight. Further, if one of them has a bad day, two should compensate. If a sole arbiter has a bad day, that's that.

OK - judges still f*ck up, that's human nature.

But three judges is surely better than one busy man.

totally agree, people are going to make mistakes we know that but sense says there's more chance of one man making a mistake than three isnt there?

The board needs to change this and get out of the old ages.

Why is this fight a 12 rounder?

Horse wrote:Why is this fight a 12 rounder?

I was thinking that myself...must be a TV thing. It really isn't very exciting.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:But three judges is surely better than one busy man.

Maybe it is, but is there a great deal of evidence to support that theory?

Horse wrote:

iwz678 wrote:I agree with them, just the ref scoring leaves it open for controversy, they've got enough work already and three judges would work a lot better whatever type of fight it is.

Is it really that distracting thinking about who is winning the round whilst they do the rest of their job?

iwz678 wrote:O'Donnell on now and I'm not really enjoying the fight, not much excitement. O'Donnell aint as good as some of the guys in the domestic welterweight division.

I am finding it difficult to care about this fight as well. I don't really know where O'Donnell's career is going and I have lost interest in him.

I can see where your coming from in regards to the ref Horse and I dont think the refs are too bothered about, just think it's much easier with three judges and surely if the rest of the world do it, then it must work fine.

I think O'Donnell will fight for the British title next time out and will get beat whoever he fights in my opinion.